From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: Rare xfsqa test failure Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:42:18 -0400 Message-ID: <20090818214218.GK28560@mit.edu> References: <20090818170705.GI5931@webber.adilger.int> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Andreas Dilger Return-path: Received: from thunk.org ([69.25.196.29]:56698 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751214AbZHRVmV (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:42:21 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090818170705.GI5931@webber.adilger.int> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 11:07:05AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > EXTENTS: > > (65-80): 60720-60735, (81-222 [uninit]): 1181574-1181715, (223-229): 1181716-118 > > 1722 > > debugfs: > > > > So it looks like there's a race which can cause ext4 to somehow miss an > > i_size update. > > Are you sure it is a failure to update i_size, or is it possibly an > fallocate that extends the block count beyond i_size? Look at the EXTENTS report from debugfs; blocks 81-222 are uninitialized from an fallocate, but block 223-229 are initialized. - Ted